Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

Did they remove the bit that used to say that the key moment is when the ball is kicked? If that applied he was offside.

I have no idea why they keep tinkering with the laws of the game. It's nonsense.

Either way the fault lies with Smith.

But..... There are other games when shirts are pulled and penalties aren't given. Why?

Also in the Brentford game Toney is clattered in the box. Clear foul. No action taken.

Some games players get away with several fouls that could be yellow, other times a yellow appears for first offence.

Referees are in an awful position.

It's a huge puzzle.
 
If we had consistency on decisions the game would be a lot better.

Like yesterday at Luton, Casemiro escaped a second yellow, which in another game probably would have seen the player red carded and sent off.
 
Hmmm

It says

'a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence.

But the foul and offside happened at the same time, ie exactly as the ball was kicked. Maybe they need an addendum.
 
From what was said after his time with the referee after game, Andoni Iraola it seems still seems confused by the explanation given.

Another well point made by him was why wasn’t the official given a wide screen picture of the penalty area to make a better judgement.

The referee to have to look at it twelve times is out of order as he obviously wasn’t sure on what decision to give.

Thought the rule was there had to be no doubt.
 
fritter said:
Hmmm

It says

'a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence.

But the foul and offside happened at the same time, ie exactly as the ball was kicked. Maybe they need an addendum.
Click to expand...

The foul occured as he was moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it but before he attempted to play it. It pretty clearly falls into the exact scenario covered by that part of the law imo.
 
fritter said:
Did they remove the bit that used to say that the key moment is when the ball is kicked? If that applied he was offside.
Click to expand...
The offside law also used to contain a phrase that said something like "a player is offside if he is interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage"
Has that been removed as well?
 
billythekid said:
From what was said after his time with the referee after game, Andoni Iraola it seems still seems confused by the explanation given.

Another well point made by him was why wasn’t the official given a wide screen picture of the penalty area to make a better judgement.

The referee to have to look at it twelve times is out of order as he obviously wasn’t sure on what decision to give.

Thought the rule was it had to be no doubt.
Click to expand...

I think this may have given him the opportunity to give a free kick instead of a pen, which would have been a more suitable outcome for this offence. Tbh though it still requires the ref bending over backwards to bail out a player who's done something stupid, which he has no obligation to do.

There's isn't really any doubt over the foul or the intention of the law, only maybe whether it was in the box or not.
 
Last edited:
billythekid said:
If we had consistency on decisions the game would be a lot better.

Like yesterday at Luton, Casemiro escaped a second yellow, which in another game probably would have seen the player red carded and sent off.
Click to expand...
This notion of consistency is nonsense. Humans make inconsistent decisions. VAR doesn’t override that.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The foul occured as he was moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it but before he attempted to play it. It pretty clearly falls into the exact scenario covered by that part of the law imo.
Click to expand...
R1chardA made a relevant comment above when he pointed out that the ball being played in was a free kick - IE dead at the point of impact rather than a cross coming in during live play. There is a subtle difference there in relation to all the movement going on at the edge of the box before the ball was kicked, which you have to wonder whether the law makers considered when drafting that scenario.
 
richnrg said:
"before playing the ball or challenging an opponent for the ball."

was he not (perhaps) already challenging an opponent for the ball?
Click to expand...
That line is clearly for when a player is in an offside position but not interfering with play. For example, if an offside player miles away from play is tripped trying to get back into an onside position.

It's not for a situation when the offside player is already interfering with play because the offside rule is pretty unambiguous.
 
LewSwimmin said:
R1chardA made a relevant comment above when he pointed out that the ball being played in was a free kick - IE dead at the point of impact rather than a cross coming in during live play. There is a subtle difference there in relation to all the movement going on at the edge of the box before the ball was kicked, which you have to wonder whether the law makers considered when drafting that scenario.
Click to expand...

As soon as the ball is kicked and play is live he's got his shirt though, a foul, and surely that exact scenario applies. The ref didn't see it. I don't think it's necessarily the refs responsibility to prevent Adam Smith from fouling their player is it?
 
Ref Watch this morning on SSN, the penalty was the first thing they reviewed. Dermot Gallagher admitted he didn't understand it so had to ask for clarification from PGMOL before going on the show. All four members of the show agreed it was a nonsense call and then cracked up laughing. Can't imagine them laughing about it if it had happened to one of the big clubs though.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
As soon as the ball is kicked and play is live he's got his shirt though, a foul, and surely that exact scenario applies. The ref didn't see it. I don't think it's necessarily the refs responsibility to prevent Adam Smith from fouling their player is it?
Click to expand...

As soon as the ball is kicked and play is live he's interfering with play in an offside position.
 
Kudos said:
As soon as the ball is kicked and play is live he's interfering with play in an offside position.
Click to expand...

Not according to the laws as they currently stand he isn't. They have clarified this exact scenario to say the foul should be given. It's ridiculous but it is clear.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Not according to the laws as they currently stand he isn't. They have clarified this exact scenario to say the foul should be given. It's ridiculous but it is clear.
Click to expand...

That paragraph is being used out of context it's for a foul committed on an 'inactive' offside player.

Law 11 - Offside | IFAB

Offside in football, offside rule football, offside rule introduced
www.theifab.com www.theifab.com

In order for that paragraph to apply Schar needs to be having no impact on play which he clearly is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;